That would affect the buyer's rights with respect to the seller, not not his rights with respect to the gaming company.

I wonder whether this is legal. Riot has the right to ban players who cheat, but maybe not the right to misidentify them based on the hardware they are using. In this case, since the game is free, there may be no contract of which this is a breach. In the case of a paid game, it seems that it would be a breach of contract.

Shut down the whole business ..

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Are there really applications appropriate to a spreadsheet for which this is needed? I suspect that this will just make it easier for people to use Excel when they really should be using R or a database.

They sell it to the government. The government is partaking of these services. THE GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT!!!! ....using Flock cameras.

Agreed, and I never said otherwise. If the police beat you with a club while in custody violating the constitution, the club manufacturer, say Acme, isn't violating the Constitution. Only the police are even though they're using Acme clubs.

But Flock is still not violating the Constitution. The fact that you seem incapable of understanding that distinction (and typing in ALL CAPS) doesn't make you right.

Your cell phone carrier is not violating the Constitution even though they are collecting your location data constantly. Neither is Apple nor Google. It's not unless the government (and only the government) searches through that data, especially without a warrant, that it's a problem.

Again, distinction. Distinctions matter. If you still get get it, well, I don't know what to tell you.

"Contextually related" isn't a thing. Either they are are aren't violating the Constitution. They aren't any more that you cell phone carrier is for knowing your location at all times.

The OP directed said Flock was violating:

Won't someone PLEASE think about the poor corporate overlords?

They're only violating the constitution so that they can hire more employees!

The story is about Flock. The OP said "corporate": Flock (not the police) is a corporation. Therefore, the "They" in "They're" refers to Flock being able to hire more employees. The story was about Flock laying off employees. There's no sensible way Flock wasn't meant as the entity allegedly doing the violating.

It was a rhetorical device to show that Flock isn't violating the Constitution.

... for "I want to program for a living.". CS is way more than that, but that was the reason many people chose it. Since AI now can code as good as humans and explain to a human what it's doing, studying CS to program is less of a thing now.
CS and it's"applied math"thing won't go away, but that was less people will study it sounds quite plausible IMHO.

Unless you can cite the specific ruling and how it's relevant to a private company collecting data, I have no reason to believe you.

Flock collecting data is no more a violation of the Constitution than your cell phone carrier (or Google or Apple) collecting your cell phone location data.

It's not until the police search that data without a valid warrant that it becomes an issue; but there mere collection of the data by Flock violates nothing.

Cite the part of the Constitution that specifically mentions stalking.

IS THE GOVERNMENT THEN VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT (using Flock cameras)?

Yes, but the OP claimed Flock (not the government) is violating the Constitution. Flock isn't; the government is, but when (and only when) they actually search through the data. Flock merely collecting all the data is not a violation of the Constitution. You need to learn to make careful distinctions.

I am a US citizen and shall be secure in my person and papers.

Fun fact: the Constitution, specifically the rights granted by the Bill of Rights, apply to all people, not citizens. The fact that you're a citizen is irrelevant.

If they have a dragnet of everyone's personal information (their location at all times) and have to search through it, they need a specific warrant signed by a judge.

Yes, they do. But this has nothing to do with Flock recording the information in the first place. Again, Flock is committing no violation. It's not until the police (not Flock) search through the data that a possible violation occurs (depending on the warrant).

For the case you cited, it concerns only cell-phone location data. That does not automatically extend to your location being obtained because you were recorded on cameras and identified (and they obviously know the location of the cameras). It's going to take another Supreme Court decision for that.

So it's likely that such tracking will eventually be unconstitutional, but, until the Supreme Court says so, it's not.

That aside, Chatrie v. United States isn't a great precedent case because there are other issues, the biggest of which is that the police obtained an overly broad warrant and went on a fishing expedition looking for evidence of a crime in the data. The 4th Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches. This case also concerns the validity of that warrant -- that was ruled invalid. Had the police had probable cause and a warrant was issued for that, the court likely would have ruled the other way.

Last I checked, the Constitution is silent on anything related to stalking. However, things can be in violation of other laws passed by Congress, state legislatures, county governments, or city governments. But that's an entirely separate question as to whether something is unconstitutional.

If someone shouts, "But that violates the Constitution," that has a very specific and narrow meaning and, unless you can cite the exact part of the Constitution it violates, it not unconstitutional.

I'm talking ONLY about the Constitution.

That aside, generally, someone being stalked knows they're being stalked and fears for their safety. If I followed you around all day staying at least 500' away, recorded your every movement, and you didn't even know I was there, then AFAIK, that's not against any law. (If it were, restraining orders wouldn't be a thing.) But, again, this has nothing to do with the Constitution or being in violation thereof.

Assuming that's true, it's because legislation was passed by either Congress or state legislatures. It's not in the Constitution. My OP was ONLY about the Constitution.